3 ms·
That's nice. It's all completely wrong though. Blair came in 1997, stayed steady in 2001, and was already losing seats by the 2005 despite the improvements to
by happymellon 3y ago
That's nice.
It's all completely wrong though.
Blair came in 1997, stayed steady in 2001, and was already losing seats by the 2005 despite the improvements to living.
Take a look at the graphs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdo...
Poverty in the UK dropped significantly under Labour, and after they were replaced it flattened.
2008 was a global financial crisis, so a little harsh to blame it on Labour. Could it have been handled better? Maybe, but the recovery here was pretty quick until the Tories decided to do what they can to extend it through breaking the country up via austerity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_financial_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_financial_...
- benbojangles 3y ago>Poverty in the UK dropped significantly under Labour > False & incorrect, Labour simply moved a few million 18-30s from unemployment to University/Loans thus changing the statistics. > and after they were replaced it flattened. > Those millions of students then became a heavily in debt unemployed.